2015-16 NHL thread

[LDF]

But the cap hit is even through the whole contract

 

the salary cap and all that. i don't know.

 

all i am talking about is the length of the contract.

[southsider2k5]

who is to know what the roster will look like. remember even dynasty has a end date. no matter how much we, the fans hates that idea.

 

being burden with another unmovable contract is all i am talking about. this team will need to find players who can step in in later yrs.

 

nice point tho.

 

They absolutely have an expiration date, which is why you are trying to win while Kane/Toews/Keith is all in their prime, and not worring about Brent Seabrook at age 37/38/39 in the next decade.

 

This contract allows the team somewhere in the neighborhood of another $2 million a year in cap space while this core is in its prime. That is what this deal is all about. Using real life numbers, saving $2 million on Seabrook is the same salary as Andrew Shaw. Are you willing to give up Andrew Shaw next year to sign Brent Seabrook to a shorter deal? Teuvo is a cap hit of just under $1.5 million going forward. Would it be OK to lose him to keep Brent Seabrook at a shorter contract?

 

That is what I am talking about.

[LittleHurt05]

So you would be giving up a player from the current roster in all likelihood, in the years when the team has the best chance to win to save for 2021 to 2024.

 

Sure, you would lose Seabrook but still have nearly $7 million to spend on another player. It might be a slight downgrade, but you also wouldn't be as screwed in the future.

[southsider2k5]

Sure, you would lose Seabrook but still have nearly $7 million to spend on another player. It might be a slight downgrade, but you also wouldn't be as screwed in the future.

 

The Chicago Blackhawks shouldn't be worrying about 2024. Their window is now.

[LittleHurt05]

The Chicago Blackhawks shouldn't be worrying about 2024. Their window is now.

 

Sure, but you can keep the future in mind while taking care of today. They aren't the Detroit Tigers with Illitch.

 

And it's not like Seabrook gave them a discount for the present day anyway, it's still a top 10 cap hit out of all defensemen.

[GGajewski18]

Mark SpectorVerified account

‏@SportsnetSpec

CHI is trying to move Bryan Bickell, with Seabrook deal kicking in next year, + Shaw, Kruger going RFA. Talked w/EDM 4 Nikitin, but no deal

[LDF]

They absolutely have an expiration date, which is why you are trying to win while Kane/Toews/Keith is all in their prime, and not worring about Brent Seabrook at age 37/38/39 in the next decade.

 

This contract allows the team somewhere in the neighborhood of another $2 million a year in cap space while this core is in its prime. That is what this deal is all about. Using real life numbers, saving $2 million on Seabrook is the same salary as Andrew Shaw. Are you willing to give up Andrew Shaw next year to sign Brent Seabrook to a shorter deal? Teuvo is a cap hit of just under $1.5 million going forward. Would it be OK to lose him to keep Brent Seabrook at a shorter contract?

 

That is what I am talking about.

 

first you are trying justify the extra 3 yrs of the contract. the money on the table, this is the money of the contract is fair. iwould doubt seabs would fine anything close to that contract as a fa. so this means after this season, the 2016, season, he walks. ok, there will fa's out there.

 

the contract also guarantees support for those yrs he will start to decline. but for 5 yrs. why screw the future when the window of opportunity is now and for the next 4-5 yrs.

 

they will need some room to start rebuilding or getting newer players in the lineup.

[LDF]

Sure, but you can keep the future in mind while taking care of today. They aren't the Detroit Tigers with Illitch.

 

And it's not like Seabrook gave them a discount for the present day anyway, it's still a top 10 cap hit out of all defensemen.

 

excellent, i never thought of this.... as you put it.

[LDF]

Mark SpectorVerified account

‏@SportsnetSpec

CHI is trying to move Bryan Bickell, with Seabrook deal kicking in next year, + Shaw, Kruger going RFA. Talked w/EDM 4 Nikitin, but no deal

 

nice update.

 

the hawks will need to sweeten that deal to make the bickell move. they screwed the pooch on that rumored trade with arz.

 

you would imagine it will go with bickell + 1rnd pick + ????

 

who will be the ???

[GGajewski18]

nice update.

 

the hawks will need to sweeten that deal to make the bickell move. they screwed the pooch on that rumored trade with arz.

 

you would imagine it will go with bickell + 1rnd pick + ????

 

who will be the ???

 

They don't need to add a 1st round pick. Nikitin from EDM actually has a worse contract than Bickell, it just expires after this year.

 

I could see Bickell and McNeil for Nikitin work.

[southsider2k5]

Sure, but you can keep the future in mind while taking care of today. They aren't the Detroit Tigers with Illitch.

 

And it's not like Seabrook gave them a discount for the present day anyway, it's still a top 10 cap hit out of all defensemen.

 

They can't be the Tigers because hockey has a salary cap.

[southsider2k5]

first you are trying justify the extra 3 yrs of the contract. the money on the table, this is the money of the contract is fair. iwould doubt seabs would fine anything close to that contract as a fa. so this means after this season, the 2016, season, he walks. ok, there will fa's out there.

 

the contract also guarantees support for those yrs he will start to decline. but for 5 yrs. why screw the future when the window of opportunity is now and for the next 4-5 yrs.

 

they will need some room to start rebuilding or getting newer players in the lineup.

 

If the entire contract doesn't exist, the cap hit is MUCH higher because the years that bring the average down are not included.

[LDF]

They don't need to add a 1st round pick. Nikitin from EDM actually has a worse contract than Bickell, it just expires after this year.

 

I could see Bickell and McNeil for Nikitin work.

 

nice hope...

 

but why would any team really want to help the hawks???

 

think of this, this way. arz had what they thought was a good pkg, Stan B wanted more, it didn't work.

 

Arz went out and got a contract for dead money of 4.9+ mil a yr for 2 more yrs for a player who is basically out of the league due to an injury. this was nothing abut a trade for the creative bookkeeping maneuver that is a loop hole in their cba.

 

the point i am making is arz needed this trade to get them to the cba salary cap floor. they had room to make this kind of trade. i don't know if any other team need this kind of help. but the price for this help with philly was big, a dman and a high draft pick plus philly is to pick up 600K in salary for the dman.

 

as i want to point out. no other team will be willing to help the hawks, esp when they are trying to win #4 SC.

[LDF]

If the entire contract doesn't exist, the cap hit is MUCH higher because the years that bring the average down are not included.

 

you may be right, i can't dispute this. this is much more info than i do know.

 

i will keep it simple. 5yr is a great length of a contract anything more is a waste. only time will tell if i am wrong.

 

but nothing can be done about it. it is a moot point.

[southsider2k5]

you may be right, i can't dispute this. this is much more info than i do know.

 

i will keep it simple. 5yr is a great length of a contract anything more is a waste. only time will tell if i am wrong.

 

but nothing can be done about it. it is a moot point.

 

Cap hit is based on a dollar average of all of the years of a deal. The reason these deals go so long is to put low paying years at the end, to balance out the high years at the front. Instead of just paying the guy 9 million a season for the next four years, they included cheaper years at the end, so that the average is lower, and thus the cap hit is lower. It is an 8 year deal in name only.

 

Also the Hawks are FAR from the only team to do that. That is why Rick DiPietro got a 15 year contract. Vincent Lecavalier got an 11 year deal. Sidney Crosby got a 12 year deal.

[LDF]

Cap hit is based on a dollar average of all of the years of a deal. The reason these deals go so long is to put low paying years at the end, to balance out the high years at the front. Instead of just paying the guy 9 million a season for the next four years, they included cheaper years at the end, so that the average is lower, and thus the cap hit is lower. It is an 8 year deal in name only.

 

Also the Hawks are FAR from the only team to do that. That is why Rick DiPietro got a 15 year contract. Vincent Lecavalier got an 11 year deal. Sidney Crosby got a 12 year deal.

 

the explanation is fantastic ... many thank for the info.

 

but while it is helpful, it does not provide any wriggle room at the end, unless buying out of the contract is an option.

[LDF]

It's really quite simple.

 

When you sign a contract, whatever the total cost of the contract is, they take that total salary and average it out over the length of the contract.

 

So a 5 year deal worth 100 million would see Player X getting paid a 20 million dollar average salary per season that would count against the salary cap.

 

Now, the Blackhawks could pay that player 40 million dollars in cash in year one, and only have to pay 60 million to that player over the next four years, but it would still be 20 million dollar cap hit per season.

 

Using simple logic, the more years you add to a contract, the average salary cap hit decreases because the money is spread out over more years.

 

Don't have an argument with someone if you don't know enough about the topic.

 

i am not arguing about the money but the length, and i believe someone else was doing the same.

 

btw, i was not arguing or ranting, i was in a discussion, and out of this i learned something new....

[LittleHurt05]

Cap hit is based on a dollar average of all of the years of a deal. The reason these deals go so long is to put low paying years at the end, to balance out the high years at the front. Instead of just paying the guy 9 million a season for the next four years, they included cheaper years at the end, so that the average is lower, and thus the cap hit is lower. It is an 8 year deal in name only.

 

Also the Hawks are FAR from the only team to do that. That is why Rick DiPietro got a 15 year contract. Vincent Lecavalier got an 11 year deal. Sidney Crosby got a 12 year deal.

 

The DiPietro deal was awful. Tampa was lucky enough to use the compliance buyout on LeCavalier. Those aren't very good examples.

 

The long-term deals made much more sense under the old cap, the new CBA is much harder to circumvent. You are actually held responsible for the whole deal, even if they retire early.

[LDF]

But your "length" argument was based on information you didn't have. What myself and others are trying to do is inform you WHY they made it 8 years. Do you really think they prefer having a player signed until age 39? They did it for a reason. We are explaining why to you, a point you didn't understand in the past.

 

i understand your point and explanation. but for me, it comes down to the length of the contract with no outs after 5 yrs. sometimes it is wise to cut bait and walk away.

 

seabs didn't offer any help to the org, let him walk. use the money in a different way. that is if he and his agent did not want to sign a fair contact for a fair amount of yrs (5yrs).

 

if not, after 2015-2016 season he is a free agent. i am sure the hawks could get a nice younger dman in the fa next yr.

 

btw, many posters sure wasn't keen on him before.

[southsider2k5]

i understand your point and explanation. but for me, it comes down to the length of the contract with no outs after 5 yrs. sometimes it is wise to cut bait and walk away.

 

seabs didn't offer any help to the org, let him walk. use the money in a different way. that is if he and his agent did not want to sign a fair contact for a fair amount of yrs (5yrs).

 

if not, after 2015-2016 season he is a free agent. i am sure the hawks could get a nice younger dman in the fa next yr.

 

btw, many posters sure wasn't keen on him before.

 

Am I the only one who saw how shallow our D core was last year after a couple of injuries to the not top players?

[LDF]

The DiPietro deal was awful. Tampa was lucky enough to use the compliance buyout on LeCavalier. Those aren't very good examples.

 

The long-term deals made much more sense under the old cap, the new CBA is much harder to circumvent. You are actually held responsible for the whole deal, even if they retire early.

 

you make a great point. creatively i can see the pluses of such a deal, esp when it was done for keith, hossa etc.... but the cap is hard.... no wriggle room .

[LDF]

Am I the only one who saw how shallow our D core was last year after a couple of injuries to the not top players?

 

nice example.

 

but the key there is experience dman who knows how to play and to play in Q system.

 

it also didn't help trading away key future dmans whether it was a good trade or not. i agree, the hawks needs to draft more dman. and develop them. but how do you get those dman experience??

[LDF]

But your "length" argument was based on information you didn't have. What myself and others are trying to do is inform you WHY they made it 8 years. Do you really think they prefer having a player signed until age 39? They did it for a reason. We are explaining why to you, a point you didn't understand in the past.

 

btw, i hope i didn't offend you with my posts... i really meant no offense.

[southsider2k5]

Everyone wants to keep the core together.

 

Until they have to re-sign them.

 

The NHL and NFL systems are set up to try to destroy dynasties and promote parity. When you have as many successful teams and players as the Hawks do, it gets tougher and tougher to keep it together.

[LDF]

Everyone wants to keep the core together.

 

Until they have to re-sign them.

 

very true to some extents. overpaying is not a case.

 

i keep coming back to the phillies run and how they tried to keep everyone together. then their run is over and they were laden with some unmovable contracts.

 

i like the improvement thru attrition philosophy .....